cycle to work?

[Bill C]

just read this, dunno how much to trust it but their figures/statistics are based on average 30 miles a week bike commute

"We found that cycling to work was associated with a 41% lower risk of dying overall compared to commuting by car or public transport. Cycle commuters had a 52% lower risk of dying from heart disease and a 40% lower risk of dying from cancer. They also had 46% lower risk of developing heart disease and a 45% lower risk of developing cancer at all."
"For both cyclists and walkers, there was a trend for a greater lowering of risk in those who commuted longer distances"
  http://theconversation.com/cycling-to-work-major-new-study-suggests-health-benefits-are-staggering-76292

 the miles most of us do we should be in for a good innings 

[julk]

I cycled to 9 miles to and from work for many years.
When I first needed glasses for reading my optician commented that my circulatory system, as viewed in his scope, was that of a man 10 years younger.
I suspect the article is close to the truth.
Julian.

[RobertL]

A fair weather commuter from North London to Essex (around 20 miles each way). I did try to step it up to four days a week, but more like two days a week in winter, two to three days a week the rest of the year.

You learn to ride very defensively - I would say respect for cyclists by other vehicles doesn't seem to improve, with only a minority slowing down and giving you a reasonable berth.

The whole diesel debate also suggests what you might gain in cardio fitness you might give up in breathing diesel exhaust.

My solution is to work early shifts and set off around six am, coming home early afternoon.

The RST with Alfine 8 does make the ride go very smoothly. I have Shimano Saints pedals and flat bar, so very much in Just ride philosophy.

[Danneaux]

I commuted to uni and work in all weather for years, using it as an excuse to train (traffic-light intervals and track-stands) and to tour (by leaving early at 06:00, adding miles on the way and doing the same on the way home, sometimes riding till 22:00 after work), racking up 8,000-12,000mi/yr (13,000-19,000km/yr).

To speed things along, I daily side-drafted the city buses down Franklin Boulevard, riding inside their bow wake next to the curbing at 35mph/56kmh. The drivers got to where they'd watch out for me and give a small toot on the horn before they needed to pull in to a stop, at which time I'd sprint ahead just enough to break draft. Felt like running into a wall. Later on, I worked for the company in Planning and Operations. It's a wonder I'm still here, but it seemed a great idea in my youth, when I felt immortal and every day included a morning time trial. I kept breaking toe clips on my quill pedals in sprints until I added a second set of Alfredo Binda Extra track straps.

Now, I have to work up a little nerve each time before I venture deep into the traffic stream without a bike lane and am ever vigilant when riding in a lane. Here in Drive-On-The-Right Land, the cars too often turn right in front of me. Signals? Wot're those? Wouldn't dream of side-drafting a bus now!

Best,

Dan.

[mickeg]

I am not sure what statisticians call it when there is a bias in the data set because you might be measuring several different things.  The implication is that cycling is going to make you that much healthier. 

But you also have to ask the question to what degree are people that are more likely to participate in low to moderate intensity exercise (like commuting by cycling) going to be naturally healthier?  And those naturally healthier people likely enjoyed the exercise, thus they were the cyclists.

I did not look at the link, I only looked at the forum posting - did they account for age?  In other words, were the cyclists the younger employees while the older employees were not cycling?

I am now retired, at my last job I worked in an office at a desk.  Most exertion was walking to the photo copy machine and back.  Several of my co-workers took an afternoon break and went for a walk for about 20 or 25 minutes.  (We were professionals, we were not required to be at our desks at set periods, thus we had some schedule flexibility.)  If it was raining, the walk likely did not happen that day, but if it was below freezing and snowing, we would still walk.  And, these guys walked pretty fast, I sometimes struggled to keep up with them.  And I had a lot of other co-workers that would take their afternoon break sitting in the cafeteria eating junk food or sugar sweetened soda.  We did have a few cycle commuters, they were in the group that went for a walk.

I am inclined to believe the numbers in the results, but I am not inclined to assume a simplistic answer for the result.

[jags]

Don't think I ever cycled to work,cycled away from it many a time

Anto

[David Simpson]

I am not sure what statisticians call it when there is a bias in the data set because you might be measuring several different things.  The implication is that cycling is going to make you that much healthier. 

But you also have to ask the question to what degree are people that are more likely to participate in low to moderate intensity exercise (like commuting by cycling) going to be naturally healthier?  And those naturally healthier people likely enjoyed the exercise, thus they were the cyclists.

I did not look at the link, I only looked at the forum posting - did they account for age?  In other words, were the cyclists the younger employees while the older employees were not cycling?

Excellent point. The article does state that they found a correlation, but did not claim a causal relationship:

"It is important to stress that while we did our best to eliminate other potential factors which might influence the findings, it is never possible to do this completely. This means we cannot conclusively say active commuting is the cause of the health outcomes that we measured."

- DaveS